Today, a security robot in DC was destroyed when it fell into a fountain.

I wonder how many of Hillary Clinton’s missing emails were accidentally uploaded to its memory before that happened?

I saw this picture from the Women’s March against the NRA.

That is their slogan: “No one is safe unless everyone is safe.”

Can somebody tell me what the hell that means?

It is meaningless, feel-good drivel.  It makes no logical sense.

There are no guarantees in life, but when I lived in the Chicago Suburbs, I lived in a night neighborhood of other professional, middle and upper middle class homeowners.  Naperville, IL, was ranked as American’s safest city.    In 2015, Chicago had 509 homicides, Naperville had zero.

It wasn’t about guns or the NRA that made that happen.

Some gang member in Chicago wasn’t less safe because I had a handgun in Naperville.

Let’s look at the UK for a moment.  They banned guns.  They have all but banned knives.  Now the UK has had almost 500 acid attacks in 2015.  Unable to arm themselves with traditional weapons, those intent on doing harm have taken to throwing battery acid from auto parts stores and drain cleaner in people’s faces.  Now the UK wants restrict the purchase and possession of those chemicals.

It should be noted that the increase in acid attacks in the UK coincides with the increase in Middle Eastern “refugees” and that acid throwing is a common occurrence in Islamic countries, particularly against women.   Linda “Jihad against Trump” Sarsour’s extended family is really enriching the culture of the UK.

These women can march against the NRA all they want, but they are not making me safer.

They are not doing anything to stop the criminal culture in Chicago, Acid throwing around the world, Female Genital Mutilation in Michigan.

What they are doing is trying to make it more unsafe for me by restricting my ability to carry for self defense.

This is safety socialism.  These elites get to keep their armed guards and the rest of us are left to the mercy of predators with nothing more than meaningless slogans about equality to defend ourselves with.

I’ve covered news about bad academics  here before.

In previous stores, the academics in question tried to bullshit the public with college sounding mumbo-jumbo jargon.

This one is a lot more nefarious and if accepted will be the end of research in the Western World.

From The Washington Post: Why these professors are warning against promoting the work of straight, white men.

Academics and scholars must be mindful about using research done by only straight, white men, according to two scientists who argued that it oppresses diverse voices and bolsters the status of already privileged and established white male scholars.

Geographers Carrie Mott and Daniel Cockayne argued in a recent paper that doing so also perpetuates what they call “white heteromasculinism,” which they defined as a “system of oppression” that benefits only those who are “white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered.” (Cisgendered describes people whose gender identity matches their birth sex.)

Forget having to wade through piles of bullshit to find scientifically rigorous research, what is important in a paper is that the authors of a paper have the right ethnic background and sexual orientation.

Mott, a professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, and Cockayne, who teaches at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, argued that scholars or researchers disproportionately cite the work of white men, thereby unfairly adding credence to the body of knowledge they offer while ignoring the voices of other groups, like women and black male academics.

Oh, Canada.

When I got published, nobody asked about my race or gender.  They wanted to see the evidence I collected, the methods I used for collection, and the analysis I did of the data.

When I reviewed other papers for publication, that’s what I cared about.

Although citation seems like a mundane practice, the feminist professors argue that citing someone’s work has implications on his or her ability to be hired, get promoted and obtain tenured status, among others.

Now it makes sense, they’re feminists.

“This important research has drawn direct attention to the continued underrepresentation and marginalization of women, people of color. … To cite narrowly, to only cite white men … or to only cite established scholars, does a disservice not only to researchers and writers who are othered by white heteromasculinism …,” they wrote in the paper published recently in the journal Gender, Place and Culture.

Despite what these people might think, one doesn’t become an “established scholar” by being a white man.  One does that by doing a lot of research and publishing rigorous work frequently.  Anybody, with enough effort, can become an “established scholar.”  It is based on a career of achievement.

Work done by women and other minorities have often been overlooked by their peers, hindering their professional advancement and depriving disciplines of diverse perspectives, she argued.

When citations are predominantly those of the work of white, straight males, “this means that the views and knowledge that are represented do not reflect the experience of people from other backgrounds,” she told Campus Reform. “When scholars continue to cite only white men on a given topic, they ignore the broader diversity of voices and researchers that are also doing important work on that topic.”

My hackles are being raised by this statement.  Scientific inquiry is not dependent on race.  These academics are geographers.  Coastlines do not vary by race.  The mighty Mississippi doesn’t flow south to north if you are a woman.  The “diverse background” statement seems to want to reinforce social justice science hacks, like feminist glaciology.

The authors offer what they describe as practical strategies for fellow geographers who work in a largely male-dominated discipline. According to the American Association of Geographers, men and women account for 62 percent and 38 percent of its members, respectively.

One of them: Scholars should read through their work and count all the citations before submitting their work for publication, and see how many people of diverse backgrounds — women, people of color, early-career scholars, graduate students and non-academics — are cited.

Ah, yes, quotas.  Nothing is more intellectually honest and scientifically rigorous than making sure you have the right number of gay, black, female geographers in your citations.

“Today, the field is more diverse, but this diversity is largely represented by earlier career scholars. Citing only tenured, established scholars means that these voices are ignored, especially when it is well-known that today’s brutally competitive academic job market continues to privilege the white heteromasculinist body,” they wrote.

Let me fix this for you: “Today, the field is filled with bullshit artists, and is largely represented by earlier career scholars. Citing only tenured, established scholars means that this crap is ignored.’

Let me tell you why this paper exists.  Some faux-scientists couldn’t find any reputable papers to back up their preconceived, social justice, approach to a topic.  So they decided that having to cite reputable papers had to go.  Using the SJW’s favorite weapon, they realized the best way to do that was to call reputable sources racist/sexist/etc-ist.  No longer bound by scientific rigor, they are free to cite whatever horseshit they want.

The big picture effect of this is the destruction of scientific research.

I found myself with some free time on Sunday morning.  I started to watch The Mist on OnDemand.

I liked the book and wanted to try the TV show.

I’m 15 minutes in and know exactly why Trump won.

One of the main characters is a teacher.  In the first 5 minutes, she gets fired for teaching her students some aspect of sex ed that the school board said was off limits.  Well, she knew better and the parents that complained are portrayed as the bad guys.

The nest scene, a kid all goth looking is at the dinner table.  His dad is ignoring him.  Mom says “you know your father can’t hear you when you’re wearing makeup.”

Dad is supposed to be a conservative, small town, narrow minded asshole.

The scene after that, they are all at the small town football game and said goth kid is lecturing everyone in earshot about straight, white, male privilege and how the black players in the NFL are oppressed.

The goth kid and the teacher’s daughter sneak off to a party.  The goth kid says – in reference to hooking up at the party – “I’m not attracted to gender, I’m attracted to personality.”

Jesus!!!

If my kid came home all gothed up and lectured me about my straight, white, male privilege, while eating the food I paid for under the roof I paid for, I don’t think I’d be particularly tolerant of that either.

Every person in the small town is depicted as a hateful, violent, conservative, closed minded, bigot.  The cops are brutal.  The townspeople all sneer at each other in judgement.  It is like a evil version of Leave it to Beaver.

It’s small town American according to Hollywood Social Justice Leftists.

In real life, of course, it is the makeup wearing, gender bending, SJW’s that are beating up the normals.

It’s so bad, I’m having a hard time making it through the setup and into the monster horror.  I’m about to abandon this show by the second commercial break of the first episode.  The Mist was one of my favorite Stephen King novels too, right after The Stand.

Just in case any Hollywood type ever reads this blog:

Knock that shit off.  Small town America is actually a very nice place.  We don’t hate our neighbors every second of ever day.  For the hundred million Americans between the coasts, goth kid is the shithead and hard working, blue collar dad is the hero.

Take a queue from Marvel.  They went all SJW in the comics and sales tanked.  I’m happy to watch old episodes of Futurama on Netflix.  If you continue to bash me over the head with this Leftist bullshit, I’m just going to stop watching anything new and enjoy my reruns.  Then who is going to suffer.  Not me, I’ll be happy.  It will be you and your sales.

I can’t touch it without giggling.  It’s like magic.

The Progressive government of the city of New York City, under Progressive mayor Bill de Blasio, decriminalized public urination as well as a number of other quality of life crimes in the city.  This has lead to a spike in overall misery for law abiding tax payers in NYC, with the NY Daily News putting out this cover.

Well, when you give a mouse a cookie, he’ll want a glass of milk.

When you give a vagrant the right to piss on a sidewalk, a pervert will piss on the face of a woman in  subway.

I have come to agree with the Progressive establishment of NYC and Blue America, national concealed carry is a bad idea.

I’m just a simple, unsophisticated rube from the Deep South.  So if I was in NYC, and was packing, and someone peed on me, or my wife, I wouldn’t be woke enough to tolerate this person’s unique sexual identity and/or culture and let him finish and leave the subway when he was done.

I’d go completely Bernie Fucking Goetz on that freak before he gave me the Hyper-AIDS.

I think it’s best for everybody that people like make stay the hell out of the Big Apple, especially with our guns, before we decimate the city’s population of pervs and weirdos that culturally enrich the city with their special sexual identities.

Norman Borlaug was a pioneer in genetic modification of crops.  He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for developing high nutrient, drought resistant crops that were credited with saving over one billion lives.

Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine.

William Shockley invented the transistor, which made the whole universe of electronics and digital technology possible.

The list of people who impacted the world in great and meaningful ways could go on forever.

Then there is Jill Filipovic.  She is a writer, and she tweeted this:

Nihilism is a philosophy that says, among other things, that life has no intrinsic value.  This tweet is pathological nihilism.

For her, the measure of a human life is only in the resources that it consumes.

Never mind the potential for greatness.  The ability to improve the world.  A human life is simply a detriment to the planet.

I wonder what she would say about people like Borlaug, or Salk, or even Einstein, or Gates and Jobs.  Where they worth the resources they consumed?

What is her standard for a return on investment for just how much environmental damage a person does just by living?  Is being a middle class, tax paying, family man with a good job enough, or would the balance of the universe be better of if he had not existed?

When the worth of a life is measured only by how little resource that life consumes the most value a person can have is to die quickly.

This is one of the most disgusting and disheartening things I’ve ever seen.